User:Vide351/Methylobacterium extorquens/Liu2040 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?  Vide351
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Vide351/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it's concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most are.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The first sentence of the section "Relationships with other Organisms" refer Methylobacterium as a class, while it should be a genus.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Most of contents reference a single paper or book. I am not sure if there are more papers to each topic that are available to refer to.
 * Are the sources current? No.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? On the wikipedia page of the article, there is not a lot of information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, they are well organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes I think so.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The author separated the content into multiple well-organized paragraphs, so it's very easy for users to clearly learn about the information.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe add more references to some points to support them. There is a small error I found and mentioned in the above review. I will type it here again just in case: "The first sentence of the section "Relationships with other Organisms" refer Methylobacterium as a class, while it should be a genus." I found it being defined as genus in wikipedia article for Methylobacterium. Maybe the author can verify it through more literature review and correct it.